Newcastle owner was ‘only in it for the money’ according to ex-manager with chip on his shoulder

by stresster on October 7th, 2008

| 340 words |

Mike Ashley is not a popular man among the St James’ Park faithful. Indeed, it’s strange to think that he was downing a pint of lager in the midst of the Toon Army at the Emirates a few weeks ago, when his presence among supporters now would probably put his life at risk. The owner is fearful of even going anywhere near the Tyneside club which he currently owns, and this latest revelation will do nothing to dispel the theory that he wanted to make a quick buck out of Newcastle.

Setanta report that Sam Allardyce, someone who was unfairly dismissed as manager of the Magpies last January, has spoken out against Ashley, claiming that there was never any long-term plan as far as the United owner was concerned. The ex-Bolton gaffer claims he’s now glad to be out of St James’ Park after sipping from the poisoned chalice for just a handful of months before receiving his marching orders.

“It is going from bad to horrendous now,” Allardyce, who was sacked by the club last year, told Talksport.

“I am glad I am out of it.

“It is crystal clear now what the motives were for Mike Ashley. It is clear he did buy the club in the hope that he could quickly sell [it] on for a vast profit.

“What I did was not in line with him. I was in it for the long term. I was there for the building of a football club.”

Perhaps Fat Sam will be invited back by the new owners to have a second bite of the cherry at St James’ Park, or maybe not if the fans have anything to do with it! Still, it seems as though Allardyce and Keegan failed as managers due to a lack of financial support from the club’s owner, who has been reluctant to dip his hand into the coffers and improve the team in the process. Newcastle fans surely deserve a well-run club when the new owners come in!

Discuss the latest transfer gossip at the Brand New COS forum!

{ 2 comments read them or add one }

pertert - October 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Phylogeny of snakes is poorly known because snake skeletons are typically small and fragile, making fossilization uncommon. However 150 million-year-old specimens readily definable as snakes with lizardlike skeletal structures have been uncovered in South America and Africa.[2] It has been agreed, on the basis of morphology, that snakes descended from lizards.[3][2] Fossil evidence suggests that snakes may have evolved from burrowing lizards, such as varanids or a similar group during the Cretaceous Period.[4] An early fossil snake, Najash rionegrina, was a two-legged burrowing animal with a sacrum, and was fully terrestrial.[5] One extant analog of these putative ancestors is the earless monitor Lanthanotus of Borneo, although it also is semi-aquatic.[6] As these ancestors became more subterranean, they lost their limbs and their bodies became more streamlined for burrowing.[6] According to this hypothesis, features such as the transparent, fused eyelids (brille) and loss of external ears evolved to combat subterranean conditions such as scratched corneas and dirt in the ears with snakes re-emerged onto the surface of the earth much as they are today.[6][4] Other primitive snakes are known to have possessed hindlimbs but lacked a direct connection of the pelvic bones to the vertebrae, including Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis, which are slightly older than Najash.[7]
BringBackBananas - October 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

i find what pertert said far more interesting than anything that fat arrogant cunt has to say

pertert - October 7th, 2008 at 1:48 pm

Phylogeny of snakes is poorly known because snake skeletons are typically small and fragile, making fossilization uncommon. However 150 million-year-old specimens readily definable as snakes with lizardlike skeletal structures have been uncovered in South America and Africa.[2] It has been agreed, on the basis of morphology, that snakes descended from lizards.[3][2] Fossil evidence suggests that snakes may have evolved from burrowing lizards, such as varanids or a similar group during the Cretaceous Period.[4] An early fossil snake, Najash rionegrina, was a two-legged burrowing animal with a sacrum, and was fully terrestrial.[5] One extant analog of these putative ancestors is the earless monitor Lanthanotus of Borneo, although it also is semi-aquatic.[6] As these ancestors became more subterranean, they lost their limbs and their bodies became more streamlined for burrowing.[6] According to this hypothesis, features such as the transparent, fused eyelids (brille) and loss of external ears evolved to combat subterranean conditions such as scratched corneas and dirt in the ears with snakes re-emerged onto the surface of the earth much as they are today.[6][4] Other primitive snakes are known to have possessed hindlimbs but lacked a direct connection of the pelvic bones to the vertebrae, including Haasiophis, Pachyrhachis and Eupodophis, which are slightly older than Najash.[7]

BringBackBananas - October 7th, 2008 at 2:09 pm

i find what pertert said far more interesting than anything that fat arrogant cunt has to say

Newcastle owner was ‘only in it for the money’ according to ex-manager with chip on his shoulder

Leave a Comment

Steaming Fresh

Polls

Banter

Sportingo

Squad

Categories